Four lawyers linked to the embattled copyright-trolling Prenda Law operation were slapped with a sanctions order earlier this month, ordering them to pay more than $80,000 in penalties and referring them to state bar investigators as well as the US Attorney's office.

The only one who has spoken publicly, John Steele, said he will appeal. Now, papers have been filed by Steele's comrade-in-arms Paul Hansmeier, asking the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to stay the sanctions issued by US District Judge Otis Wright while Hansmeier puts together a proper appeal. Hansmeier filed the motion late Thursday, just days before the May 21 deadline to pay the $81,319.72.

"The district court failed to afford Appellant even the most basic due process protections, such as the ability to cross- examine adverse witnesses or to object to the introduction of improper evidence against him, let alone the strict due process protections that would be available in a criminal contempt proceeding," writes Hansmeier in his plea to the appeals court. "The impending actions of the district court threaten to damage Appellant’s reputation in the legal community, in turn damaging his ability to attract clients and to represent them effectively, in a manner that will be irremediable through the normal appellate process without a stay of execution."

Hansmeier went straight to the appeals court, since "the district judge has prejudged the issues" and petitioning Wright would be "futile." Wright's order was "explicitly drafted to evade meaningful appellate review," with Wright putting the sanctions price tag at what he thought would be "just below the cost of an effective appeal."

He goes on to describe briefly what Wright was concerned with. The judge's orders suggested the Prenda gang needed to defend their actions on several grounds: did they fail to conduct "reasonable inquiry" before filing their John Doe suits? Did they hide their financial interest in the case and misrepresent the relationships between different entities filing suit? And did they Steal Alan Cooper's identity, setting him up as a "straw man" head of their copyright-enforcement shell company?

At the April 2 hearing, Hansmeier, Steele, and Duffy all showed up, but they pleaded the Fifth Amendment. Hansmeier writes: "After learning of this posture, the district court rebuffed counsel’s attempt to present arguments and abruptly ended the hearing... No testimony, evidence, or argument was allowed or presented at the hearing, which lasted approximately 12 minutes."

The Prenda crew didn't get the rights they were due in a criminal contempt proceeding, argues Hansmeier—and the April 2 hearing should have been considered a criminal hearing, regardless of what Wright called it. "[T]he district court raised questions of fraud, potential incarceration, and contempt," he writes.

Thus, Hansmeier's motion argues that he deserved all the rights of a criminal defendant. Punitive measures like the $81,000 fine should also comport with the safeguards of criminal law, which include "notice of the charges, assistance of counsel, the opportunity to confront adverse witnesses, the opportunity to present a defense and call witnesses, an independent prosecutor, a jury trial, the presumption of innocence, the privilege against self-incrimination, and a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Hansmeier then says that Wright's "procedural errors and failures to provide Appellant with due process of law are too numerous and extensive to fully cover in this motion," and he goes on to list two main points. First, Hansmeier argues that defense lawyer Morgan Pietz was essentially appointed as a "special prosecutor" when the court invited him to present evidence regarding Prenda's conduct. Second, Hansmeier's emergency motion repeats a complaint that has been made by his friend John Steele: that it was improper for Wright to draw negative inferences when Hansmeier, Steele, and Duffy invoked their Fifth Amendment rights.

Pietz, who represents the John Doe defendant sued in the Ingenuity 13 case, responded to Hansmeier's motion on Friday afternoon. He doesn't have a problem with the monetary sanctions being delayed, if Prenda agrees to post a bond for payment. Pietz explains:

Prenda Law, Inc. and its associated lawyers are an organization that is rapidly falling apart. They have dismissed the vast majority of their pending court cases across the country—cases which are their sole source of revenue. Meanwhile, as the days go by, they are increasingly being hit with new motions and orders to show cause for sanctions in various courts... In short, there may not be any solvent persons around to collect from for much longer. Further, as will be detailed in briefing on the merits, the lawyers’ interests in these cases (as well as their assets, one presumes) are hidden behind a web of Nevis LLC’s and mysterious offshore trusts.

As for the non-monetary sanctions, Pietz gives no quarter. "[T]he courts and public with whom Hansemeier is transacting business should absolutely be informed and appraised of these findings, even if an appeal is underway," he writes.

Defamation case against anti-troll blogs is dead in the water

Hansmeier's desperate plea for more time is bracketed by two other negative developments for the group.

If Hansmeier and his colleagues weren't already pressed enough, a final obstacle presented itself on Wednesday, the day before he filed his emergency motion: it appears that Hansmeier can't easily be admitted to the bar of the Ninth Circuit, where he wants to appeal. "The court is informed that respondent is the subject of a referral to the Minnesota State Bar and to the Central District of California Standing Committee on Discipline, based on a finding of moral turpitude in Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe," wrote the Ninth Circuit commissioner. He'll have to file a status report before even being admitted to practice and will have to continue to file status reports every 60 days.

Until Hansmeier is admitted, he'll have the right to represent himself, but he will not be able to represent other Prenda-linked parties.

Finally, one of Prenda's last-ditch efforts to save itself—or, arguably, dig itself into a deeper hole—was a defamation lawsuit filed in early March. The suit alleged that authors who made comments on anti-troll blogs suggesting that Prenda lawyers are "brain damaged" or "assclowns" should be hauled into court. To that end, Prenda actually went ahead and asked for the IP address of every anti-troll blog reader. At that point, WordPress said it would fight back, and EFF got involved, moving to quash the subpoena on behalf of the anonymously authored anti-troll blogs.

Prenda didn't even bother responding to EFF's motion, which has now been accepted by the court. They won't get any information from the blogs, and their defamation lawsuit looks, predictably, like it's going nowhere fast.

That's a pretty ballsy move to refuse to offer any testimony at the hearing, and then complain that they didn't have an opportunity to provide testimony, because the judge cut the hearing short (because they refused to testify). But also par for the course. Refuse to answer any question, then complain about an adverse ruling against them that had to be based on speculation because they didn't answer any questions.

I'm sorry, he had every chance to defend himself already, and he pled the fifth. He was told - this is your chance to explain your actions - he refused to answer on the grounds that he believed he would incriminate himself.

"The impending actions of the district court threaten to damage Appellant’s reputation in the legal community, in turn damaging his ability to attract clients and to represent them effectively, in a manner that will be irremediable through the normal appellate process without a stay of execution."

"The impending actions of the district court threaten to damage Appellant’s reputation in the legal community, in turn damaging his ability to attract clients and to represent them effectively, in a manner that will be irremediable through the normal appellate process without a stay of execution."

Dude.....the court did not damage your reputation. It;s been in the toilet for a long time. And the best part......you put it there with your attempted perversion of the legal system of this country.

Mr. Hansmeier (aka assclown), meet karma. And yes, karma can be a bitch.

Do court sanctions on lawyers carry the same burden of evidence as criminal charges? Do you have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have violated the standards of the bar association, or is the standard less stringent? Because anything less than absolute proof has this guy pretty much nailed...

'He also notes that Wright's order "is explicitly drafted to evade meaningful appellate review," since Wright put the price tag at what he thought would be "just below the cost of an effective appeal."'

Gee Hansmeier, you picked up on that trick pretty quickly. Sounds familiar, huh? I suppose you could try to sue Wright for infringing on Prenda's business-method patent on "choosing damage amounts just below legal costs to extort settlement".

Do court sanctions on lawyers carry the same burden of evidence as criminal charges? Do you have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have violated the standards of the bar association, or is the standard less stringent? Because anything less than absolute proof has this guy pretty much nailed...

81k split 4 ways is 20,250 each. This is also a civil not criminal matter so the exact rules of evidence, appeal are different. My, non-lawyer, understanding is that civil procedures will only result in fines directly though indirectly criminal proceedings may occur from evidence gleaned from a civil procedure. Also, there is no 5th admendment protection in a civil matter only in criminal matters.

So lemme see if I follow Pauly's argument? He's trying to say that Wright is incorrect and should not have inferred from his and the other Prenda goons 5th pleading that they were not guilty(or have done anything possibly wrong)? Pleading the filth is refusing to incriminate yourself!(or at least possibly do so) And in the case of these absolute fuckwits, they keep doing things that keep making them either look stupid, greedy, or, outright like they are gaming the system, hence Wrights option to refer them to the people "Eleven decks up". Him and his cohorts made themselves look bad, if not guilty before the fact all on their own, and they still continue to do so.

How damn dumb do you really need to be to know that you're now under serious scrutiny yet you keep trying to get away with stuff? The Ty-D-Bowl man is knocking Paul, he's mentioning something about your career...

I'm sorry, he had every chance to defend himself already, and he pled the fifth. He was told - this is your chance to explain your actions - he refused to answer on the grounds that he believed he would incriminate himself.

This is the difference between the actual law and people's interpretations of the law.

Hansmeier is correct in this regard: It doesn't matter that the Fifth Amendment is meant to prevent self-incrimination; invoking it is not incriminating in anything but a public opinion kind of way. What good is a right against self-incrimination that can't be invoked without being used as evidence of your guilt?

Now, there may be different rules in play with this hearing, which is probably why Hansmeier goes to so much trouble to illustrate why he believes it was essentially a criminal hearing, where he should be guaranteed those protections. But "he refused to answer, it means he's teh guiltyz!" doesn't fly in court.

They'll get their stay, it's almost certain. I don't know that he will get another "trial," whatever we want to call it, but I'm betting he'll get that too.

'He also notes that Wright's order "is explicitly drafted to evade meaningful appellate review," since Wright put the price tag at what he thought would be "just below the cost of an effective appeal.'

Gee Hansmeier, you picked up on that trick pretty quickly. Sounds familiar, huh? I suppose you could try to sue Wright for infringing on Prenda's business-method patent on "choosing damage amounts just below court costs to extort settlement".

That's the best part. Prenda assclown's are now crying about being subject to their own tactics.

I'm sorry, he had every chance to defend himself already, and he pled the fifth. He was told - this is your chance to explain your actions - he refused to answer on the grounds that he believed he would incriminate himself.

This is the difference between the actual law and people's interpretations of the law.

Hansmeier is correct in this regard: It doesn't matter that the Fifth Amendment is meant to prevent self-incrimination; invoking it is not incriminating in anything but a public opinion kind of way. What good is a right against self-incrimination that can't be invoked without being used as evidence of your guilt?

Now, there may be different rules in play with this hearing, which is probably why Hansmeier goes to so much trouble to illustrate why he believes it was essentially a criminal hearing, where he should be guaranteed those protections. But "he refused to answer, it means he's teh guiltyz!" doesn't fly in court.

They'll get their stay, it's almost certain. I don't know that he will get another "trial," whatever we want to call it, but I'm betting he'll get that too.

As has often been pointed out in these threads, adverse inference (treating a plea of the Fifth as evidence of misconduct) is allowed in civil cases, which is why Hansmeier is pushing the idea that the case became a criminal case.

"The impending actions of the district court threaten to damage Appellant’s reputation in the legal community, in turn damaging his ability to attract clients and to represent them effectively, in a manner that will be irremediable through the normal appellate process without a stay of execution."

Uh, yes. That's the entire point, Hansmeier (you braindead assclown).

Don't forget, they're their own clients. Apparently even they're turned off by their own reputation!

Quote:

Do court sanctions on lawyers carry the same burden of evidence as criminal charges? Do you have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have violated the standards of the bar association, or is the standard less stringent? Because anything less than absolute proof has this guy pretty much nailed..

There's two separate things there, but no, court sanctions don't have the same burden of evidence as a criminal charge. Judges have some pretty broad discretion when it comes to leveling sanctions against lawyers. The concept that Prenda is trying to use, claiming that some key words that Wright said made it into a quasi-criminal hearing is pretty laughable. They may, in fact, eventually find themselves with criminal charges against them, and the stuff they said in that hearing could have been used against them in those proceedings. So pleading the 5th in that hearing could have kept them from incriminating themselves later. However, that doesn't mean that makes the civil hearing they were in criminal proceedings.

As for bar association reviews, that's a different beast entirely. They do have their own fact finding hearings, but as they're a non-governmental organization, they don't have to live up to the "reasonable doubt" bar. I think they're highly likely to get pounded on by every agency that decides to investigate them. But as far as burdens of proof go, I think the bar associations have the lowest ones to reach before they can essentially issue their version of a "guilty" verdict.

I'm sorry, he had every chance to defend himself already, and he pled the fifth. He was told - this is your chance to explain your actions - he refused to answer on the grounds that he believed he would incriminate himself.

This is the difference between the actual law and people's interpretations of the law.

Hansmeier is correct in this regard: It doesn't matter that the Fifth Amendment is meant to prevent self-incrimination; invoking it is not incriminating in anything but a public opinion kind of way. What good is a right against self-incrimination that can't be invoked without being used as evidence of your guilt?

Now, there may be different rules in play with this hearing, which is probably why Hansmeier goes to so much trouble to illustrate why he believes it was essentially a criminal hearing, where he should be guaranteed those protections. But "he refused to answer, it means he's teh guiltyz!" doesn't fly in court.

They'll get their stay, it's almost certain. I don't know that he will get another "trial," whatever we want to call it, but I'm betting he'll get that too.

I dont see it as the judge using ONLY the invocation of the 5th as proof of guilt, it just didnt help them in the slightest. He presented all the evidence against them which was pretty damning on its own and asked them if there was any explanation other than the conclusions the evidence pointed to. Their refusal to offer up another theory led him to accept those conclusions.

I'm sorry, he had every chance to defend himself already, and he pled the fifth. He was told - this is your chance to explain your actions - he refused to answer on the grounds that he believed he would incriminate himself.

This is the difference between the actual law and people's interpretations of the law.

Hansmeier is correct in this regard: It doesn't matter that the Fifth Amendment is meant to prevent self-incrimination; invoking it is not incriminating in anything but a public opinion kind of way. What good is a right against self-incrimination that can't be invoked without being used as evidence of your guilt?

Now, there may be different rules in play with this hearing, which is probably why Hansmeier goes to so much trouble to illustrate why he believes it was essentially a criminal hearing, where he should be guaranteed those protections. But "he refused to answer, it means he's teh guiltyz!" doesn't fly in court.

They'll get their stay, it's almost certain. I don't know that he will get another "trial," whatever we want to call it, but I'm betting he'll get that too.

Yes, and ironically, it's your interpretation that's entirely incorrect. As a civil case, the judge may well infer from a Fifth Amendment plea, some degree of guilt. But, keep on trying to shift those goal posts, Prenda guy.

Of course, a witness’s right not to self-incriminate is found in the Fifth Amendment. (Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution contains a similar provision as well.) This Constitutional right includes a defendant’s right to: (1) remain silent, (2) not be called as a witness for the prosecution, and (3) not have the fact that he exercised his right against self-incrimination used against him. This principle is well-established in the criminal context where juries are instructed that the defendant cannot be compelled to testify, and that if he exercises his right not to testify, the jury cannot use this as any evidence of guilt whatsoever.

In civil cases, however, the juries receive no such instruction. First of all, any party or witness in a civil case may be called to testify, whether they are facing criminal charges or not. Second, witnesses in civil actions do not enjoy an unfettered right to refuse to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds. Finally, in a civil case it is perfectly permissible for a judge or jury to infer that a witness is guilty of wrongdoing if they invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to a question. (Of course, civil juries can’t send witnesses to jail for invoking the Fifth Amendment; they can only find them civilly liable.)

"the district judge has prejudged the issues" and petitioning Wright would be "futile." Wright's order was "explicitly drafted to evade meaningful appellate review," with Wright putting the sanctions price tag at what he thought would be "just below the cost of an effective appeal."

Hansmeier is correct in this regard: It doesn't matter that the Fifth Amendment is meant to prevent self-incrimination; invoking it is not incriminating in anything but a public opinion kind of way. What good is a right against self-incrimination that can't be invoked without being used as evidence of your guilt?

He has a right to plead the 5th, as does everyone. However, that doesn't mean it can't be used against him in a civil trial, unlike in a criminal trial. Also, it's not like this happened in a vacuum. The defendants in that case (the person Prenda was suing) provided their evidence to show how they thought the conspiracy and shell companies were designed. Prenda was offered the opportunity to refute this evidence, but declined to. Now it's true that at least one of their counsel tried to offer an explanation without any of the Prenda people testifying on their own behalf, and the judge shut them down. However, since this was just a hearing, and not a full trial anymore, that might have been within his power to determine just what kind of evidence he was willing to accept.

I'm sorry, he had every chance to defend himself already, and he pled the fifth. He was told - this is your chance to explain your actions - he refused to answer on the grounds that he believed he would incriminate himself.

This is the difference between the actual law and people's interpretations of the law.

Hansmeier is correct in this regard: It doesn't matter that the Fifth Amendment is meant to prevent self-incrimination; invoking it is not incriminating in anything but a public opinion kind of way. What good is a right against self-incrimination that can't be invoked without being used as evidence of your guilt?

Now, there may be different rules in play with this hearing, which is probably why Hansmeier goes to so much trouble to illustrate why he believes it was essentially a criminal hearing, where he should be guaranteed those protections. But "he refused to answer, it means he's teh guiltyz!" doesn't fly in court.

They'll get their stay, it's almost certain. I don't know that he will get another "trial," whatever we want to call it, but I'm betting he'll get that too.

Actually, it appears as though his appeal is based upon the notion that he did not get to present his version of the story. He refused, based upon the 5th, to answer the judge's questions. The judge ruled that if he was not willing to answer any questions he did not have anything relevant to add to the case. The judge basically ruled that he can't have it both ways, i.e., refuse to answer questions AND get to tell his warped, skewed version of the story.

I believe the judge's ruling will stand. Even Appellate Courts hate it when a lawyer refuses to answer a judge's questions. You don't get to tell a judge *just the part* of the story you want to tell. If a judge requests it a lawyer needs to tell the whole story or no story at all -- or face sanctions from the judge.

rockforbrains, I read somewhere (Popehat?) that $81K sum applied to each of them individually because of how the judge phrased his order.

Between the four of them, they only have to come up with $81k in total, divided however they wish -- but if the full $81k is not paid, each of them can be pursued individually for whatever portion (up to the full $81k) is left over until the full amount of the judgment is paid, at which point whichever of them had the easiest assets to attach among the four of them can have their own squabble about who owes who what.

Hansmeier filed the motion late Thursday, just days before the May 21 deadline to pay the $81,319.72.

What a fucking scumbag. Those assclowns did the same thing the first time they tried to avoid being called to his court room, by submitting their papers late on Friday so that no one would have had opportunity to actually look at it until Monday, but those scum suckers could just go ahead and say; "But look, we submitted this before the deadline! See, see!"